at 8:45, beryl davis will be on to discuss the new practices that federal agencies are implementing to host: good morning. and welcome to "washington journal" on this monday, february 27, it 2012. the house and senate return to work in washington today. both will be in session this afternoon. america's governors continue their winter meeting in downtown d.c. the national governors association, this morning, president obama, vice president biden will deliver remarks to the n.g.a. the fight for the republican nomination for president continues, with primaries in michigan and arizona tomorrow. a lot of rampup heading into that. and as we look at campaign 2012, we'd like to hear from you this morning, what you

think about negative ads. do you think they're effective? do they work? do they ultimately hurt the party? republicans, democrats, you can call and weigh in. here are the numbers. republicans, 202-737-0002. democrats, 202-737-0001. independent callsers, 202-628-0205. and outside the united states, 202-628-0184. you can also email in your comments, journal @c-span.org. share your thoughts by twitter, and we'll get that and share it on the air. or join the conversation on facebook. look for c-span and weigh in there. some negative ads, do they work? do they turn you off or make a difference? here's a recent story from "the washington post" -- the study shows that negative campaign ads are much more frequent and vicious than in primaries past. if you thought you were living through a particularly nasty presidential primary season,

turns out you were right. four years ago, just 6% of campaign ads in the g.o.p. primaries amounted to attacks on other republicans. in this election, that figure has shot up to more than 50%, according to an analysis of advertising trends. and the negative ads are not just more frequent, they also appear to be more vitriol i can. in 2008, one of the harshest ads mitt romney ran ahead of the iowa caucuses criticized the immigration position of senator john mccain of arizona, but only after calling him an honorable man. in 2012, such writes p.w. barnum, such a nicety seems quaint. this is the pro-obama super p.a.c. ad that's airing in michigan attacking hit mom knee. -- attacking mitt romney. >> let detroit go bankrupt. >> mitt romney. there's no question he made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy. >> bankrupt.

>> romney pocketed huge fees shortly before companies collapsed. >> bankrupt. >> even when the businesses failed, romney came out ahead. are those the values we want in an america president? >> bankrupt. >> priorities u.s.a. action is responsible for the consent of this advertising. host: do negative ads work? that's our question this morning. let's hear from jim, i understand penalty caller, in akron, ohio. good morning. caller: yeah, first of all, i think it depends on the individual. if he's got all that baggage, the negative ads are going to work. i want to kind of change directions here real quick. i'm looking at the screen right now, and i see republicans, democrats, and independents. the republicans and democrats, they're one in the same today. what we have in this country is we have different states

destroying the company, and it starts with the state of texas. the last four wars have been started by texans, and oil companies are in texas. nasa, that's texas. illegal labor, that's texas. halliburton is from texas. so, you know, it shouldn't be democrats and republicans. it should be people that live in texas or the southwest that are attached to the oil, the war, you know, the illegal labor, you know, the military contractors. host: the focus is on negative ads -- caller: yeah, but ma'am, the negative ads, that's all irrelevant today. host: ok, let's hear what katherine has to say, democratic caller in florida. go ahead, katherine. caller: yes, good morning. what the gentleman was speaking of wasn't quite the question that you had asked. yes, i believe negative ads are just what they are, negative, and whether you are a democrat or republican, independent, it

is negative, and i really have seen a trend with the more negative ads causing a loss to the people who are pushing the most negative ads, such as mr. gingrich. he has lost quite a few points, and he's just an example. i don't like it on any of the sides, and it's bad for the country. >> host: katherine, as a democrat, what did you think about the ad we just watched? it was from the pro-obama super p.a.c. attacking mitt romney zsm that turn you off to the president? caller: turns me off, no, it doesn't, because i have read the f.e.c. for over four years now, and i see what they do. they allow people to run moneys, so i do not think that it makes president obama look bad, it makes p.a.c.'s look bad. but the average person that doesn't understand the f.e.c. and p.a.c.'s and those moneys, they will certainly think that that is negative. host: let's look at some

comments on facebook. peter says, you bet your life they work. he says negative ads are effective. steven says voters do not treat all negative information equally. if the allegations or information presented in the negative ad are perceived as relevant, the effects will probably be less significant. second, while negative ads have the capacity to weaken political support for a candidate's opponent, going negative within a campaign can also diminish the attacking candidate's stature among voters. he says there can be a backlash. jesse says negative ads do work. royanne says i would rather know what they could do to improve conditions in the u.s.a. i'm tired of all the negative ads. josh, what do you think, ann arbor, michigan, independent. caller: well, you know, i was just looking at that super p.a.c. ad you played earlier for president obama, and the one thing that i really noticed is that the ad is incredibly emotive. while i do agree that negative ads are particularly effective

in the modern political sphere, we need to, as a collective, realize that certain negative ads really add nothing to the discussion, and others really have the potential to distinguish certain candidates, ideologically and statistically. host: does it influence you, josh? do you feel like you absorb what the negative ads are saying? do you think there's a backlash at all? caller: i mean, backlash is certainly a prevalent issue, but i think backlash comes in the form of some of the more ugly ads we've seen throughout the republican campaign, especially a lot of the mudslinging we've seen. i mean, it's all over the tv screens here in michigan with mitt romney and dr. ron paul. you know, all duking it all on the airwaves. some of them have really emptied the complaints, while others are very substantive, like some of ron paul's complaints about senator santorum's voting record or mitt romney's voting record while he was governor of massachusetts.

host: are you planning on voting in the primary? caller: absolutely. host: can you tell us who? >> caller: absolutely supportive of ron paul. host: let's look at some of the local newspapers in michigan, the "detroit news." it's courtesy of the newseum. we get the front pages thanks to them. not only does it have a story about romney and santorum, but it also has a piece on ron paul. it says the maverick urges reform. it talk about one voter who took the trip for the journey of her life.

host: there's one day left before g.o.p. make their candidate known. as they crisscross the state sunday, mitt romney looked to solidify his status as the best candidate to take on president barack obama in november. host: democratic caller in washington, d.c., good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good, thanks. go right ahead. caller: i love your program, and i appreciate the opportunity to be able to voice my opinion. first, i suggest that i think that it's clearly evident the negative ads have been prevalent in american campaigning, not only in recent memory, but over the course of the extended period of the way our process works. at some point, though, i have to question as a viewer of this

political drama, what does the media or individuals such as yourself that are reporting this, i mean, this extends over to bloggers now that the media has extended to the public sector, what is the definition of a negative campaign? i can't imagine calling mitt romney out on his comments on the detroit bail justice as a negative comment. he's running for the president of the united states, and this is something that he specifically put a stamp on to the public. how is that defined as a negative campaign, and what is going on as far as the media overlooking a lot of these cause that are made throughout the primary process, both on the republican and democratic side, which i think is even more visceral than anything that's being broadcast on television. host: well, we, c-span, actually covered an event on friday that looked at some of the very questions you're asking about, the new america foundation looked at the evolution and impact of negative ads.

we'll hear a clip of that in just a few moments. but first, let's listen to an ad that comes from the pro-romney super p.a.c. this hits santorum on votes he's taken, and this ad is running in states that have primaries tomorrow. >> how did rick santorum actually vote? santorum voted to raise the debt limit five times and for billions in wasteful projects, including the bridge to nowhere. in a single session, santorum cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending and zero to cut spending. santorum even voted to raise his own pay and join hillary clinton to let convicted felons vote. rick santorum, big spender, washington insider. host: that's from the pro-romney super p.a.c., restore our future, hitting rick santorum. here are the numbers to call if you'd like to weigh in on whether you think negative ads work. republican, 202-737-0002. democrats, 202-737-0001.

independent callers, 202-628-0205. republicans, do you think there's any kind of backlash happening? we heard some comments from jeb bush of florida, saying that he was concerned about the tone and direction of the back and forth going on between the candidates. what do you think? does it ultimately hurt the team or does it help by making the candidates stronger and getting them battle tested before the general election? here's a comment that michael made on twitter. negative ads work for me if they're clearly fact-based, however logic and outright lies work against the ad originator. what do you think stands? democratic caller in cleveland. caller: hi. how are you today? host: good. caller: good, actually, i'm sometimes going to call it negative ads. i think we come from, because that's pretty much what it's about now. i'm on the democratic side, so i know you get it from both

sides. but i think the majority of negative ads have 30% of truth to them, there's really not a lot of fact, and i think that because of the super p.a.c., which allows them to continue to do that, i think it's going to continue to bring our country down. i think whatever happens to the people people speaking on the issues rather than picking on the other person's negative, and i think that it is hurting our democracy as a country, and i think eventually if that continues, without any type of adjustment to the super p.a.c., it's going to hurt us overall in our society, and our society is going down because we're no longer caring about certain things. at this point, i think it's terrible, but on both sides. i think in my opinion, the republicans go way too far with it, and now it's even evident because they're actually doing it to each other, which is fine. but it dehumanizes the

president like he's not even human. and i think most of the negative ads work because they appeal to people who are not very intelligent to make their own decisions based on a particular ad rather than look at things logically and then have an understanding behalf they should do. host: let's look at comments that former florida governor jeb bush made. he said the other day -- host: marty is a republican in westland, michigan. good morning, marty. caller: how you doing? host: good. are you planning to vote tomorrow? caller: absolutely. host: who are you voting for? caller: i'll be voting for

newt, even though the ground game out here is nonexistent in the state pretty much because he's in georgia today. but i'm sure it's political. host: do you think negative ads are hurt him? caller: i would say so. for me, i don't pay attention to negative ads. it's pretty much bad if you look at the polling and whatnot. i just would hope people research, analyze that both parties have come to destroy the country and hopefully people will get to their senses and realize that, you know, the stuff has got to stop. it's our money, not theirs. host: joseph writes in on twitter and says sit zends united has made the negativity great they are election cycle than it appears. let's go on to our next call, which is out of utah. south jordan, utah, steven, independent line. welcome.

caller: welcome. there are principles that have applied and acted upon that will increase the social, spiritual, and economic well-being of individuals, as well as nations. these principles have come from moses, and they're called the 10 commandments. and there's one of them that says thou shall not bear false witness. in this election, it's turned into the bear false witness election. it surely will not increase the social, spiritual well-being of individuals or this nation. home what does it mean to you when it comes time to vote? caller: come times to vote? i don't even know if i'm going vote this year, because i don't think it's going to make any difference who is elected the way this country has gone. host: does that trouble you, steven? caller: it does. it's really sad. i don't see republican or democrats, they're both -- what's happened to this country, this country has turned those principles into, you might say, the 10 inconvenient truths, all of them.

and it's sad. host: we have a comment on twitter asking about this issue of truth. don writes in and says there's no such thing as truth in politics. i mentioned that c-span on friday shared an event from the new america foundation that looked at the evolution and impact of negative ads. you can find more of this on our website in a video library at c-span.org. but let's take a listen to comments made by robert mann, the author of "mushroom clouds," which looks at how lies actually can come inside of positive ads sometimes. let's take a listen to that. >> a lot more lies are told in positive ads than negative ads. you can't -- i'm a family man. i love my country. i love puppies. i love christmas. those are not sort of demon stable statements that can be checked unless you can, you know, find someone torturing santa claus or something, you're want going to be able to

disprove that. the facts are presented in these negative ads, and occasionally, you know, maybe more often than, you have people like john kerry and michael dukakis who are incompetent incident when it comes to knowing how to respond in an effective way, but there are many candidates who are very effective in responding to those and using, marshaling the media and others to set the record straight. that's why i agree with ken, that the negative ads are not a bad thing. they engage people in a way that positive ads, frankly, i don't think do. host: that's robert mann. he is the author of "daisy petals and mushroom clouds," a book about ads and campaigns. that was part of an event that c-span was at at friday from the new america foundation. if you'd like to see more, go to our website and look for the video library at c-span.org. let's look at this graphic about negativity in campaigns. this is looking at 2008 versus 2012. in 2008, the green are

positive, money spent on positive ads, and then money spent on negative ads. very different this campaign season. $52 million spent on positive ads four years ago with only $3.4 million on negative ads. so far this year in 2012, over $18 million on the positive ads and over $19 million on the negatives. that's looking at how super p.a.c.'s are contributing. when we look at the contributions by candidates, expenditures by individual, gingrich, paul, romney, santorum, the most money has come from the romney campaign, $14.7 million. gingrich has spent $2.7 million. ron paul, $1.3 million. rick santorum, $400,000 on negative ads. caller: thanks for taking my call. you look beautiful in that purple blouse that you have on. host: what do you think about the negative ads?

are you listening to them? do you pay attention to them? caller: well, not really, because the biggest lier wins. it's like the stripes on a zebra. you can't change the stripes. i'm actually -- i want to say i'm biased to the fact, but i've been a union truck driver on the east coast for 25 years. like most of these callers have said, the working man and working woman of the united states who basically forks out everything has no say in the matter. we put a bunch of crooks in office down there in washington. they've lost complete touch with the guy, the iron worker, the truck driver, the teacher, the san tarme worker, the hospital worker. i mean, any time you pay a ball player and an actor multimillion dollars for an hour and a half's worth of work, and you pay an airline pilot who's got 300 people on board an airplane to go across the seas, you take their pensions, strip their pensions from them, we're running a

backwards country here. something just needs to be changed. thanks for taking my call. host: well, danny, there's a story in the "l.a. times" today, santorum and romney fight their own class war in michigan. in a key republican primary showdown, rhetoric flies about a struggle between the working class and the elite. this ties into what you were work -- what you were talking about. host: joe on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, negative ads work, because they keep the candidates from really discussing the issues. but they a co-conspirator, the

media. the media falls into that trap and perpetuates these negative ads, and they refuse to discuss the issues. i can't remember the last time i've seen someone on the media ask the president or these candidates -- there are 24 million americans out of work. what do you intend to do? we're $16 trillion in debt. what do you intend to do? our jobs are overseas. what do you intend to do? so, the media is complicit in allowing these candidates and the president to get away from discussing the issues that are killing my country. host: what do you think about the debate season? has the republican debates helped the dialogue, helped you hear the candidates talks about the issues? caller: that's the point. host: you don't think so? caller: that's the point. this is no debate season. this is a mudslinging season. there's no debate. there's no issues being

discussed. could you hear me at the other end? host: i could, joe. what i meant was the actual debate. there have been over 20 debates between the candidates f. you've tuned into those, have those added something that you feel like what you're seeing and hearing about the media has not? caller: it makes me realize we're in worse shape than i thought. host: ok. alice, democratic caller in kalamazoo, michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, now, we teach our children, we're supposed to teach our children not to tell lies. and when you have grown people standing on tv lying on each other, what is that teaching your children? tell tell a lie to get what you want. host: alice, you live in michigan. how much advertising are you seeing, are you listening to, are you reading in your papers? >> i view a lot of that on tv. it's disgusting. happy let's hear from pat in fenton, who's calling on our independent line. let's get you going here.

pat, what do you think? caller: well, first, thanks for c-span. i think as a lunch pail republican that i'm going to vote for santorum. romney has talked about the bailout in ways that have upset me. he's blamed it all on the unions, the economic problems that the automobile companies had instead of years of bad management, and from his own mouth, he has reinforced what santorum has had to say. host: are you hearing -- are you talking to friends of yours, are you talking to family, are you hearing about their impressions of how they're going to vote tomorrow? caller: yes, and for the most part, they're going to hold our noses and vote for santorum, because we don't feel like he is attacking the average person in the way that the romney campaign has. host: have your feelings changed about mitt romney from four years ago? caller: yes. host: how come? because of the bailout? caller: because of the bailout, and because of the fact that he

was willing to bail out the banks, he wasn't willing to bail out the automobile industry, which would have resulted in millions of jobs being lost. i know at that time there wasn't any bank or corporation that was willing to put up the money to help with the bailout, to fund it. i've listened very carefully to the news about that. i think that the santorum ad has reinforced what romney himself has said about the bailout and what he continues to say about the bailout. host: and pat, before we let you go, as someone who lives in michigan, how significant do you think it would be if mitt romney does not win tomorrow, does not win that state? caller: i think the powers-that-be have decide that had romney is going to be our candidate regardless of who votes. host: the comment on twitter, charles agrees with an earlier caller who was concerned about the media's role in the negative tone. charles has a good point. the media replicates the negative ads and amplifies and collects money. let's go to california.

alan, republican. good morning. caller: i am absolutely a democrat, but i forgive you for that. host: my apologies. go ahead, alan. caller: you're forgiven. obviously these negative ads advance the agenda of their perpetrators. they have the effect of depressing the overall interest of the electorate and going to the polls and casting the vote. it's fascinating, because it's a unique exercise in selling and marketing. these ads attempt to sell an individual or a combination of both. you do not see comparable behavior, save from the automobile industry or the breakfast cereal industry or computers. they don't buy my competitor's product, it will make you stupid, up attractive and ineffective. you just don't see that kind of approach to the selling of ideas anywhere else but in politics. and it degrades the entire political situation, and it certainly doesn't have

information that anybody who thinks about it would use to make a decision as important as somehow they'll cast their vote. i briefly have a request of you, by the way. you and your colleagues have a remarkable objectivity, which is without precedent in broadcast journalism. and i would love to see you describe how you acquire that ability t. has to be through training, has to be through an investment of time and the practicing of objectivity. i know a lot of people think that c-span is a national trsh you're, and they're fascinated by your objectivity, would love to see you, during your lens of investigation on yourself, just in that area and say, this is how we bring this high standard of civility and objectivity to what we do, because i don't understand quite how you do it and would love to know. host: well, we'll take that under advisement, alan, thank you. a lot of it comes from the tone that was set by c-span founders brian lamb, susan swain, have created that model, where we really want to hear from and you have a dialogue where we can hear what you have to say.

alan, you mentioned ads and how they're used, how it's different between selling products versus selling candidates. we're going to hear later on in the program from ken goldstein, who's with the campaign media analysis group. he's the president. he'll be talking about targeting ads and also the connection between how campaigns learn from how products are sold. joe is an independent caller in california. good morning, joe. caller: good morning. what i wanted to say is, like the last ad you showed with santorum, if that is truly his record, there's nothing wrong with that. but when they lie and distort the truth, that's wrong. now, these candidates all say that they're christian, which i wouldn't say that they're not, but they sure do not act the way god tells them to act. they talk about ronald reagan's 11th commandment. why don't they follow jesus' 11th commandment to treat each other right?

if they would run a clean campaign and put their total trust in god, they may win. but if you notice that most of these christian right, the way they've been acting isn't anything like what god acts. and some of the worst offenders have all fallen off. host: joe, what does this mean for you ghu to the polls, when you contribute or get involved in politics? maybe you don't. how does that actually play out in your life? caller: well, as an independent, i have always voted republican. but this time i find it almost impossible to be able to vote for them, and what they're doing with most people i believe is turning them towards obama. now, myself, i didn't vote for obama because i don't agree with obama, and i will vote, but i may vote for buddy romer, because he seems to really stand on the christian

principles. he's willing to expose the truth of what's going on in washington. host: well, buddy romer was our guest on "washington journal" on saturday, and you can find that at c-span.org if up to the hear what he had to say on "washington journal." a couple more comments on twitter say. couple of more comments on facebook and twitter. go negative, there better not be the slightest hint of negativity -- ambiguity or dishonesty. the shows as it is a reflection of how disengage regular citizens are from actual issues. they have low information. thank you for all your calls.

coming up next, we will hear from the governor of kansas. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this particular phone on the rings in a serious crisis. put it in the hands of a man who has proven himself vote for president johnson. >> bush for the caucus and on crime.s >> the accusations that john kerry made against the veterans who served in vietnam was devastating. >> we can all point to an hour reaches commercial or two or three or four, but on average, a

negative commercials, are more likely to be factually correct, and negative commercials are more likely to talk about issues. >> will 2012 be the most negative campaign cycle in history? a new discussion looks at current and past political campaigns and their impact on american culture. watch this and past panels on line at the c-span video library. search, watch, click in share. it is what you want, when you want. >> there are millions of decent americans will yen -- willing to sacrifice for change, but they want to do it without being threatened and want to do it peacefully. they are the non-violent majority who are for change without violence. these are the people whose voice i want to be. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. though it were website to see

video of the contenders to have a lasting impact on american politics. >> to you remember when times were really hard and we left the doors unlocked? now we have the most violent crime-ridden society in the industrialized world. i cannot live with that. did you live with that? -- can you live with that? >> "washington journal" continues. host: gov. sam brownback joins us. thank you for being here this morning. guest: happy to be here this morning. you always have an interesting show. nice to be here. >> here for the national governors' association meeting. what are you hearing from other governors compared to past times when you have met with colleagues when it comes to the

feelings about how local economies are doing? mixed. a lot of it depends on the manufacturing you have in your state. agriculture has done well the past several years. oil and gas we of a nice start of a lateral do and where the drilling boom is starting to move into place. ours is doing pretty good and other places it still lags. there is a nagging long-term unemployment that is still there. you say by this point in time in this recession, we should be pulling out and we're still holding onto it like mud. >> while the national and a plumber rate enginery was 8.3%, kansas was 6.3%. >> we have been doing better

than the national average. it is still this nagging -- there is still a lot of long- term unemployment. there is a lot of listeners -- if you want a job, come to kansas. we have work. we have a number of places that are advertising. not every place, but we a lot of places. things are starting to pick back up. we have a line for republicans and democrats and kansas residents. that number for residents of kansas -- what are the top issues as you head into 2012? >> on a federal level, i think it is this fear that the country is not going in the right way. from a standpoint that -- not so

much about who was leading at this point in time, just this idea that we have an enormous deficit. it feels like things are languishing, like we're losing the leadership position. if you went to a crowd of 100 and said how many of you are scared about the future of your country? you would get 80 percent of the shoot up. i am concerned it too much debt, the economy is not moving forward, i am concerned and scared about the future of my country. that would be the over arching feeling that you get from a number of people. >> you had endorsed rick perry for the presidency. what made him a candidate you could stand behind come into are you looking at now? guest: we go back a long way. we were at commissioners years ago.

i thought that with what he has done within the texas economy would be the standout feature, because the economy was the key issue and remains, i think, one of the top issues, and into the fall. i thought the message of economic growth and cutting taxes of someone who has done it would really sell, but debates are difficult for him and did not make it through the debates. kansas will have the crop is coming up shortly, and i think i will wait until after that to say you i will endorse. it has been an odd election cycle. we have had seven republican leaders to a bid at the top of the polls. it reflects the idea that people are very concerned about the future of the country and are really casting this to see who has the plan to help bring this back to where america should be. host: you will wait until after

the caucus? what i amat is planning to do. host: jan bruer is bleeding on endorsing him. she also chose not to go to a meeting with the white house. i am looking at a story that she declined the president's dinner last night. did you go to that? guest: i did. it was a pleasant occasion and a chance to talk through with the cabinet officers and other governors, things we're working on. it was an enjoyable event, but i know there gets to the conflict at times, and sometimes it is just easier to avoid it. let's go to john, an independent scholar. -- caller.

caller: i have never in a primary seen such negative ads in terms of fear. you commented earlier that one of the former governor's wrote a book on jeb bush. when you live in the south east here, that someone would go as far as literally scary people, we are going to take your social security -- this guy is going to do that, there must be some reason of sanity to fear tactics, and i have never seen the republic kids use more fear, literally fear, things that are unsubstantiated. this president is a food stamp president. you scared all the people who are giving subsidies.

i was just curious as to what did you think of not only the advertisements, but the town? no one on the republican side has said anything visionary. host: let's get a response. jeb bush made a comment that he thinks candidates are appealing to people's fears and hopes the changes before the election. guest: that sounds more like jeb bush. i think the people are looking at the debt crisis in europe and the turmoil in thing we're not far behind. if they are falling off this cliff, why are we seeking to follow the same model, or if we are on the same model in much regard because of our debt, why not get out?

let's start dealing with the debt. here is where a lot of people really are very critical of the president's having a chance a year ago to really engage in a debt and deficit reduction debate and discussion with the congress, have the simpson polls report out. i sat next to the executive director last night. here you have a bipartisan effort that says here are the places to cut. put a flat tax in place to get growth, and the president says it no. everything freezes and goes into a political campaign cycle when the country is saying deal with the debt. get the economy going. that is not taking place. i think that is what really has the sense of urgency on people that we really need to start doing something. i look at it, and to me, the

federal but joke here is starting to let air out. -- federal bubble is starting to let air out. we have government spending 41 cents of every dollar it is far road. people say this cannot last. it is starting to deflate the bubble. hopefully it can be done in a controlled fashion, and not on a very rapid fashion. >> since you brought up simpson els, there is a new article out. he is trying to take steps and recommendations. >> and that is good, but look at how slow this is taking place. >> i stood up and said you have an historic opportunity. a democrat president with these

massive debt and deficits we have come and republican house of representatives that willingly wants to take the issue on. this is the sort of mix you can get at for this thing. i am glad to see pieces of this starting to come into place, but he proposes a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit? of four trillion dollar deficit a year in a row? this is nothing compared -- it is 14 trillion dollars total, but compared to medicare and social security. it will be 50 trillion dollars before it is done. we're facing a massive amount of federal debt. no significant plan in place to address this. >> we have a kansas calller. host: we have a kansas

caller. guest: i am from parker. my brother still lives there. good to hear the name was selac. caller: i am very concerned about a story i heard where they are denying benefits to the children of undocumented workers. those children that were born, they are not here of their own volition. they did not come here themselves. i am extremely concerned that enying milk two little babio l, as winston churchill put it, i am very concerned about that. if i do not have a right, i would like you to correct me and what our decision is in dealing with these persons come up because it seems to me like we

experience a great deal of positive work, and if we are inviting these people in, it looks to me that, it seems to me like what president bush did, i am hearing that rumbles that the thing was for scott at 75 miles per hour on 199 street, that that was created, helped be billed by undocumented workers. >> i do not know about that. here is the issue, and here's what is presented to me. if you have a household with two people, to adults in the documented adults, a book of the incomes are considered on whether or not a household qualifies for food stamps. we of a second household where

one has a documented worker and the other is undocumented. and of the system we had, the undocumented worker and adults, their income was not considered for whether or not the house will qualify for food stamps. you favor of the household with undocumented workers over the one with documented workers. what i said is they should be treated equally. if you are documented or undocumented adults in this household, your income should be considered on whether or not the household or not should qualify for free stamps. otherwise it is an equity issue, and you were favoring a household that has undocumented workers in it. through theg this system to find common people it has impacted. it really became an equity issue of whether or not you should favor the house so that has undocumented workers or treated equally to the household that has both adults in the household

as documented. host: an editorial from last month says -- guest: food stamps is a federal program for one thing. it is not about balancing the budget. it is about being fair and equitable on whose income you consider. the total 2000 is not off of the policy issue. people come and go off of food stamps. generally the food stamp numbers go down. we have been a very high levels. the unemployment rates have gone down. that has been the thing that has driven us far more than any sort of change in policy. should you consider household income, whether it comes from someone who was documented or

undocumented? what do you think? from our's hear listeners. cornelia and ioin idaho. caller: it is kind of early out here? [laughter] i would like to make a quick comment that u.s. the governor about when you opened the program, and that is, i have noticed that the economy is slightly improving, but i attribute it to the republican governors that got in in 2010 and had improved the economies in their states, and that reflects a nationally, but i give credit to those states that are being the lead up -- being led the right way by conservative republican governors. i think the president should not take credit for any improvement

in the economy. it should be the states that have individually improved their economy. anyway, the most important point is that i agree with newt gingrich's that our president is unfortunately a very dangerous man went and administration can dictate to any religion that they have to provide things that go against their conscience to their employees, and next year -- or in 2014, it is said they will have to pay for providing abortions. host: bringing up the issue whether or not religious organizations would cover birth control descriptions and such. the white house pivoted on that and said the insurance companies would cover the cost.

happy with the compromise? >> i am not happy. i would like to go back to her earlier statement about republican governors. the last decade we lost 1000 private sector jobs. we have put to come in my state, a big emphasis on growing private sector jobs, recruited heavily bearded companies trying to improve the business climate, taking taxes off. really trying to incense and grow the economy and many republican governors. i am glad you noticed this issue. i was surprised the administration would do something like that. i was very surprised they would do it in an election year. i think it was a terrible idea

on their part. you should not require a religious group to do something that is against their beliefs. there strongly-held beliefs. that is what they did in this. i am glad they did that. i do not think the compromise is sufficient. i think this is a bad way to see a government start to move by where you were basically forcing people to do things that is against their beliefs. that is not what freedom of religion is about in the united states. host: our calller is happy with the direction republican governors are taking, such as yourself. i am looking at a story from the sacramento bee that talks about how we gave the president warm welcome when president obama recently went to town. what are you learning from what

he is facing right now? guest: it is difficult when you make change. last year i came into office facing a $500 million budget issue. it has been a $14 billion budget. it was a big hole. you have to make a lot of changes. we're not going to raise taxes coming in dropping the rate so that we go from a high tax to a low state tax. that is difficult. then you talk about making changes. you are talking about adjustments you need to make. you are talking about cuts in funding. and that is not a pleasant conversation. scott walker was taking on the issues in wisconsin. these are difficult issues. this is just a precursor to what has to happen federally. you have to see this conversation take place. the federal government has to get smaller as a percentage of the overall economy, and because

it is broke. you were basically seeing the precursor to the conversation federally taking place in the number of states that are making a lot of adjustments and living within budgetary means. we're looking at how much rent we're paying for the facility. but fire we and all of these places when we can be in fewer -- why are we in all these problems when we can bea in fewer? >by watching costs, we have been able to punch numbers down. we went from a $500 million deficit to of million dollar surplus. i am projecting to propose a budget that has $450 million surplus and dropping tax rates down. you can do it, but you have to

really get in the nuts and bolts of this place. the federal government has got to do this. it is going to happen. >> a reminder to join the conversation. let's go to a calller in florida. caller: my question is, since they're having the governors' meeting now, it would be a good time to bring up, we owned the federal lands, even though the government takes care of them. the drilling is going on, and the oil coming out of there, they belong to every person in the united states. we are now shipping oil overseas. there should not be one that drop of oil from these oil companies here to be shipped

overseas. guest: i do not know the specifics of what he is talking about. i am a little surprise we would be shipping overseas when we are such a big consumer, but there are trade flows that move differently at times that if you have up oil needs in the gulf, but are producing oil in alaska, that sometimes because it is a commodity, you can see that go from alaska to japan, because it is cheaper to ship oil into the gulf of mexico. that is also all the more reason for doing the major pipeline bit the obama administration just backed out on. that is a pipeline that goes from canadian oil fields next door right into these refineries that is in the gulf. much more secure situation. we need to develop come over rican, our oil supply. you will see the prices

continued to take up. i saw some really tough numbers or heard about them yesterday of gasoline prices going way up this summer. the problem is you limit your supply, and a lot of it has been limited come and you cut the supply line of so you do not have as much access to the canadian oil, sooner or later delimiting will impact you in price, because it will drive the price up. ossawatomie, k ansas. caller: your folks live down and parker, just a few miles from here. i read that. guest: that is not true.

caller: in a particular, i am concerned that, along with lots of other red states, governor brown back feels like we should state in thesedest country. he was talking about what insurance companies -- i mean, what president obama is requiring insurance companies to do. you were taking away the individual women's right to decide -- to decide if they need birth control. 98 percent of women had used birth control in their lives. we can pay for vasectomies. we can pay for by agra, but we cannot pay for birth control for women? i think it is a shame. guest: i really respectfully disagree with you. what the president said was basically, if you are a church that does not believe in this,

and the catholic church has problems -- the official catholic church, and other institutions have problems with paying for concert had reached a contract -- contraceptives. they have a problem if you work for a church or an abortion. a number of religious groups say we do not want to pay for the morning-after pill type effects. this is against our religious beliefs. the president is saying you have to pay for it. they are saying this is against the view that life is sacred. and we cannot be involved in this or we are breaking one of the fundamental tenets of our views and face. that is not denying women's rights. wants birth control,h contro

go work somewhere else. it is not that the president should be able to force the institution of faith to do something that he thinks it should, that is against the fundamental first amendment rights of freedom of religion. i disagree with you on women's articularly.to curl having three very strong daughters that are doing well, i want them to have every opportunity and possibility in this country, and they're going to have it. caller: thank you for taking the call. i have a question for the governor. basically is the welfare program. i was part of the work investment board, and they put

me as a high wage committee chairmen. i went to washington and express my views in respect to the not attending to the people who make 170,000. they are not really that well- off as you may think they are. what we did here is anybody that made 170,000 because of 2.5 or 4 million going back to the government to operate and plate -- pay employee benefits, i said the people at the low and do not want to get educated for whatever reason, because it affects the 1200, so therefore they are not seeking to improve. so we passed it, and we offered anyone that made 170,000, $20,000 to send their kids to any college. guest: i am not sure i am

catching what your question is. caller: my question is the republican party has failed to help people -- host: are you saying people who make 170,000 fee should be considered middle class and not taxed as though they are millionaires? caller: all i have to say, i run a business come and insurance companies should offer up hill. if you have to grow up and be a real -- host host: let's build and to this into this issue of taxation. this issue has come up a lot. where is the threshold? guest: the whole thing is to

complicated and you should go to a flat tax. -- too complicated, and you should go to a flat tax. yours in the present and discuss this. it is a pro-growth strategy. you get your lobbyists and special interests out of the tax code and say this is the rate. you drop the rate and broaden the base. i think that is really what you should do. that would be a pro-group strategy. this is being done in a number of different countries. we should do it in the united states. i propose an optional flat tax in the senate. the current tax code, which became this fight off of the floor ought to be taken behind the barn and killed with a poll tax. the thing is a bad code. it is harmful, unintelligible. you cannot understand it and is time to get rid of it. host: sam brownback comer

governor of kansas, thank you for coming in. at the national governors' association. coming up, we will talk about americans tax dollars and had to cut wasteful spending. we will be right back. -- and how to cut wasteful spending. ♪ >> this particular phone only brings at a serious crisis. leave it in the hands of a man who has proven himself successful. bush supports the death penalty for first-degree murderers. decaucaus a lot first-degree murderers to have weakened passes from prison. -- dukakis.

>> randomly shot at civilians. >> we can all point to an outrageous commercial or two or three or four. but on average, negative commercials are more likely to be factually correct, in negative commercials are more likely to talk about issues. >> will 2012 be the most negative campaign cycle in history? a new discussion looks at current and past political campaigns and their impact on american culture. watch this and past articles online at the c-span video library. search, watch, click in share. >> there are millions of decent americans william to -- willing to sacrifice for change but want to do it without being threatened and want to do it peacefully. they are the non-violent majority who work for change

without violence. these are the people whose voice i want to be. >> we look back up 14 men who ran for the office even lost. go to our website at c-span.org to see video of the contenders to have a lasting impact on american politics. >> the you remember when times were really hard and let the doors unlocked? -- do you remember when times were really hard and we left the door is unlocked? i cannot live with that. can you live with that? >> c-span.org/thecontendors. joins us.olds bken goldstein

when campaign super pacs want to target voters, how are they doing it? we're seeing micra targeting being done by companies wishing to sell products, but are we seeing it by campaigns? >> we're certainly seeing it now more by campaigns. >> what is my career targeting? -- what is my are targeting? with: let's for start targeting. to target people early in the election verses late in the election. targeting mean to you are trying to deliver your message to. the notion with my career party is so much money is spent in television advertising. intelligent advertising is a bit of a shotgun approach. you may try to target a particular shows, and we can discuss that. lots of people who you do not mean to see your message are seeing your message because they

have different partisan views, and that can mean geographically. the greatest example is you do not hear national network advertisements in the presidential race because of certain states are in play or not in play. you target states and then target media market. you may target particular stations. what you're trying to do it is to it at the household level. even at the individual level. there is a ton of information about me, and you out there. what magazine to subscribe to. probably a bad example because you probably do not subscribe. what magazine to subscribe to. your credit history, and particular states have more detailed voter registration information whether you register as a democrat or republican or independent. the targeting firms are trying to take all the information out there, and merge it with what

they know about your public voting history come and then do additional modeling. they do surveys, and they know a woman of this age is also going to have these feelings on the issues. it enables them to use a rifle approach than a shotgun approach to the targeting. let's look at what ken goldstein is speaking up. how top-secret obama campaign program could change the 2012 race. on january 22 a young woman and a socially conservative corner of southwest ohio had a campaign manager for barack obama. for a while the email she received from obama and his organizing for america apparatus were appealing to give money. she felt that one that provided she give her name. the email kept coming.

it certainly did not have the hard edge political message that could scare one away. the campaign managers know was different. she talked about covering contraception and things that were particularly relevant to this one young woman. how is the obama campaign finding a out so much information about their audience? guest: their modeling her essentially. what they are saying is this young woman with -- in arhost: even though she was conservative part of america? guest: she is not near anywheads anywhere in utah or kansas. this allows you to bring it down to the household and individuals to deliver particular messages. that is interesting for a number of reasons. you may or may not end up actually caring about that

person when it comes to would general election, because they may not be in a place where you think you can win, but you may be targeting him to win money. host: if you would like to join the conversation about targeting voters, here are the numbers -- our guest is ken goldstein. let's look at the story -- ken goldstein, default what kind of data is there a -- what kind of data it is there on how effective this is?

what are they really trying to get out of them? guest: campaigns want to try everything that can possibly work. i do not think lack of money will be a big problem in this election cycle. it is not like it is coming at a cost of other traditional things that people do in the campaign. what is interesting is targeting enables you to get the particular people. mike wrote targeticro targeting. that is also the weakness of it. with television advertising, the advertisement goes to the person. i am watching jeopardy. i am watching wheel of fortune. i am not watching that to get political information. if i am watching fox news, and i am going to that show

because i have a particular point of view. that is useful information for a marketer. they know something. they know something about me. that means i am unlikely to be an undecided voter. they know i am a fan at that point. all of this targeted media on the internet is a very good way to reach people who probably are ready to agree with you anyway. you may want to do that to mobilize them. you may want to do that to raise money for them, but at some point the campaign will turn from that time of talking to supporters. a time when we're in a primary to wear more swing voters are -- where you're looking for more swing voters. they are harder to find. host: let's go to the independent line. ed in north carolina.

caller: think you for c-span. -- thank you for c-span. i notice they all seem to say the same thing. they are for the people. they want to solve the money problem. they want to solve the world conflict problems. they all do the exact same thing. they all call you to give money. it is all about money, money. what we need to do is get rid of the gop and get rid of the democrats and here is why. we need to vote for the man. all of us put together cannot solve a problem because we're all bumping heads. ron paul could solve all of the problems and none of them will vote for him, because he is not in with the gop it speaks the truth. they do not want the truth. obama says he got the man in

afghanistan. the cia went over and got him. everyone wants credit for everything else. oft: let's product issue negative ads and positive messages. our guest was at a panel that c- span broadcast looking at a negative advertising. >> maybe you can comment on what the calller was saying when he started off by saying they're all talking about the same thing. >> they all speak to the calller here. i of the one who likes negative ads. maybe that is a little bit of an overstatement. we are right in the middle of an intense election season now. the calller obviously has a point of view and is reacting that they do not think a particular side or is not making sense to them. about advertising is

negative advertising is likely to not say the same old things all the time. it is very easy to say i am from pie.otherhood and apple we can certainly point to negative advertisements that we think are our regis, but they tend to have more factual information and more verifiable information than folks either agree with or disagree with. >> looking at a graphic on how there is more money being spent this year than there was four years ago on negative advertisements, do you think negative campaigning ties into my car targeting. guest: i am not sure there is a time here. negative campaigning is not new. before we knew the word microtargeting, there was-cave

painting. we can go back to the election of 1800 were john adams saying if you voted for thomas jefferson, there would be homeless children on this bike. it people criticize andrew jackson because his mom was a british prostitute. that would be a nasty advertisement. so in negative campaigning is not new. when the calller before talked about everything the same in american politics, in some ways it is. you are either voting for change or voting to stay the same. if someone is trying to convince you to change, what is different about the amount of advertising and the tone of advertising we are seeing in the primary so far is you tend to not seem negative advertising so much in primaries. it is not necessarily because it is in a family, so we should be happy in the primary and only

say positive things. the reason why you tend to not see negative advertisement in primaries is they are multi person. one of the reasons why it rick santorum has been able to have such a lead is no one paid much attention to him. it enabled someone on the side to come up. if so the big change has been the amount of negative advertisements with scene and a multi-person race. host: let's look at two ads. 'we will see how they're targeted differently for different audiences. >> this election is about more than just replacing a president. it is about replacing the soul of america. we still believe in america the

challenges each of us to be bigger and better to better ourselves. it is time for this pessimistic president to step aside and let the american optimism that built this greatest nation on earth build a greater future for our children. if you believe the disappointments are a detour, not the destiny, that i am asking for your vote. >> i am mitt romney, and i approve this message. >> we appreciate you coming out so early in caring. we all care right out. i believe in him. i believe he has the experience. i have seen him in every situation. i have seen him as a husband, father, governor, and a successful businessman. everything he does, he does it well and does it with his heart and commitment. if there was ever a time this country need someone like him, it is now. >> this election is about more than just replacing a president.

it is about saving a vision of america. we still believe in america that brings out the best in all of us, the challenges each of us to be better and bigger than ourselves. it is time for the pessimistic president to step aside and let american optimism that built the greatest nation on earth build a greater future for our children. host: we saw two adds for mitt romney. the second advertisement eventually got rid of first left off. ann romney in the second one gives the preamble. we hear her voice. who were these geared to? guest: when a campaign is making a targeting decision, they first have to decide what they will say. then they have to decide who will say it for them? then they have to decide who they will say it to,

geographically and individually. that is a basic mitt romney message that we saw in both campaigns. and he is taking the lead in delivering it on the second time. i have not gone and looked at where those exact assets are being targeted, but i would imagine that ad in which mayor ron be -- ann romney is talking may have been delivered more at women. so you buy shows which be womnen are more likely to be watching-- which women are more likely to be watching. you try to get information on women that are unlikely to vote in a primary or caucus. and you in a combination of pulling in the wind what messages work, have decided your best deliver of that message is ann romney, the wife validating

the husband. host: next calller. caller: good morning. thank you for my call. i would like to start off by saying i agree with you that negative advertisements the family server purpose, and people need to know the facts. candidates going out there to run for a presidential race, they're going to go out there and false information so they can be proved on them right away. i would also say the people deserve to know the facts. it should be out there and for the people to know. we're talking about a person running for the presidency of the united states. host: are you supporting anyone for president at this point? caller: i am definitely boardivoting for ron paul, a

libertarian. host: how have you heard about ron paul? have you seen advertisements? have you gotten e-mails? caller: i have read things on the internet. i was mainly concerned about the direction the country was headed in and the fact that the federal government keeps increasing loss by 80,000 every year. almost every person can be found of doing a federal crime or felony or put in prison for almost anything. host: let's go back to advertising and ask the guests tell the ron paul campaign would use enthusiasm? could they target him in an ad campaign? guest: louisiana has seen its share of tough politics. ernest first talks about how he views negative advertisement.

are in accurate thing said or sometimes outrageous thing said? sure, but typically in the campaign the other side has resources to respond if there is enough attention paid to it. sometimes the market will work. about reaching people, there is also a good example here, too. someone was interested in politics and had concerns about politics and did his research and settled on ron paul as the person that you wanted to support. campaigns are not necessarily concerned about advertising to you to convince you of anything. the ron paul campaign would like to convince you with other sorts of messages, raise money from you get you involved to volunteer for them, but there are two sorts of targeting. that is targeting people who

are already interested, targeting people who were c-span viewers, did not like politics would not be watching as and when not be watching us right now. most people who like politics have a favorite team. when you're trying to target people like ernest and many of the people watching us this morning, you're trying to mobilize them, tried to get them to work for you and perhaps give you money. very different than the people you will try to target what it comes to a general election campaign. host: clark in florida. go ahead. caller: i have been the c-span watcher since the late 1980's. every day. starts off everyday. what i have noticed here recently with your program, it appears to me either your program intentionally or unintentionally is targeting individuals. basically every day you have had

a person from the right on their talking in giving out and pushing their particular message. every day. sometimes twice. you will always have a person from the right on there at some point in time talking about the right message. i just think since the program has changed when you used to have people there to talk about issues at the same time, somehow you said they were talking too much and were not able to get enough information out, you should adjust the the program an hour. in the past year it has been our right person on their every day. host: think you for your feedback. we try to balance it. -- thank you for your feedback. do we still have you on the line? caller: that is the same answer.

a calller or question for the guess? -- for the guest? caller: at this point in time, if you know you turn to c-span, you will get information from the right. host: sorry you feel that way. we will keep striving to have balance in the program. let's hear from our calller in kansas city, missouri. caller: hello. [inaudible] they act like they do not know what they're doing. host: buddy system that is all about money? guest: i do not know. [laughter]

host: view of the talking about the negative advertisements, which hardly demonstrates the system that you've been talking about. is there a way that candidates are helped by the negative advertisements that are shot against about at other candidates? we saw that people were speculating people were teaming up, going after mitt romney or rick santorum, looking at how ron paul was getting involved in the debate. guest: two things, and i do not want to be pollyannish about politics. the country is obviously facing serious problems, but we are in a place where republicans feel something very different from the republicans. republicans feel very different from the democrats. we're going to have an election this year to adjudicate that in the sense. part of that election will be

each side having plenty of resources to make their point of view and tell you why the other side might be wrong. for the viewer who thought you may have been leaning one way or another, they will absolutely have their chance to be the judge and jury on what is going on in american politics, and the american people will have their say. i know that sounds like the civics class lecture, and certainly there are serious problems, but i do not think you want to be in the position or i want to be in the position of saying we should be talking about these messages or should not be talking about these messages or this advertisement is ok or that one is ok. the other question you had about coordination in campaigns and certain sides ganging up,

listen, i do not know if mitt romney and ron paul r. buddies. i do not know about that. what is very interesting in this campaign has been when you have this multi-candidate race, people call it the 2004 iowa caucuses "murder-suicide." how were doing was leading in the democratic primary. dean when-. they both knock themselves out, and took him up? john kerry and john edwards. i think we're seeing a very similar thing in the republican contest where rick santorum certainly is getting his share of hits now, but in the early primaries, he benefited because the attention was caught on him. host: one viewer weighs on

twitter -- martha's vineyard in massachusetts. barbara on the democrats' line. guest: good morning. i would like to know if television stations keep ratings on political ads. question number one. if they do, and people who started the campaign to either change the channel or turn off the tv every time a political ad came on, with the ratings indicate to the politicians that it was no longer worth their while to buy political ads and this whole ridiculous system could stop? guest: going to martha's vineyard, the former home state of mind, foreimassachusetts. the the decision could certainly keep ratings. nielsen has ratings on every

show. there are not ratings on particular ads within a show. we now increasingly have the technology to understand whether people are turning off commercials. we are now in a world of tv are -- of dvr's. my daughter started fast forwarding the button watching the oscars last night, but we were watching it live. we have technology to see whether people avoid those commercials, switch to another channel, pause, and fast forward. but the fact of the matter is most people still watch the commercials live, and people are still watching a lot of television. but what you say -- listen, you have a choice. for everybody who complains about too much television advertising, too much negative

advertising, turn the tv off. you do not have to watch it. when i found interesting in that open code new york times) article, there are -- in that "new york times" article, the article about microtargeting, you had one person saying that what is bad about microtargeting it does not speak to everybody. people are not going to get the political messages. maybe you cannot win. host: you have political redlining. an assistant professor at the school of journalism and mass communication at the university of north carolina, chapel hill, says, "believes entire segment out of the population of the political communication of the campaign. campaigns are not going to put resource on people who are not seen as being important." guest: and we have people complaining their is too much of

it, articles of "i cannot get rid of the campaign, though others saying, "i want the campaign." host: utah, republican. good morning. caller: here's my take on this whole negative-positive and thing. the founding fathers founded the country, they fought hard for a free press. because they were going to depend on the press to keep things honest. the problem you have nowadays is you have part of the people spinning things left, part of the people spinning things right. you have almost nobody telling the whole truth. in fact, the way you can tell if most politicians are lying now is is if their lips are moving. for the next six months, if the press and politicians themselves had to tell the truth lie in the movie "liar, liar" with jim carrey, where he could

not lie, i would rely on the american people to 100% make the right choices. if they're being fed true and st. information, the people will make the right choice. --host: this twitter -- this twd -- "mr. goldstein, would you support a fine or a tax on campaigns for negative false ads to pay debt?" guest: who gets to be the referee, though? you are correct that the press plays a crucial role in getting information out there, playing a crucial role. i think it would be difficult to argue now that we are in a world that it is difficult to get intimation -- you can watch -- to get information -- you can watch c-span, other cable news network. not only can you read your daily paper, you can read every single paper in the world on the internet.

who gets to push the liar button? i certainly do not want to be the person who is the referee. again, are false claims going to get out there? sure. but ultimately i have to believe in something that our founding fathers believed, that they did not want to choke off liberty. they did not want to choke off speech. james madison, a very famous analogy -- "if you have a fire in a room, one thing you can do to stop the fire is suck out all the oxygen. of course, when you suck out all the oxygen, you'll kill everybody as well as killing the fire." i think it is the same with political speech. i do not want to be the person deciding whether something is true or not, whether something is too nasty or two-. i'm going to -- or to negative.

aboutwe're talking targeted ads cut targeting voters through advertising. let's hear from that on our independent line in richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have been really annoyed by this clip you have been showing with the statement that negative ads are generally true. i mean, it is outrageous that you cannot sit through one that they do not put out some bumper sticker falsehood. there have-truths. host: you feel the negativity in the ads equates often with falsehood? caller: absolutely. host: let's get a response from ken goldstein. guest: i have my right to a

point of view, the viewer has his right to a point of view, and we can debate about that. host: can you give an example of an ad that was negative but essentially true? guest: almost every single one of them. let's look at another aspect of negative adds. they're actually checkable. if i am airing a negative and about you, which is you walking on the beach with a dog and you're a nice person and you will solve all of america's problems -- we can all get behind that, but how are we going to check that? there is absolutely no way for us to check that. now let's talk about particular votes you have done, particular things you have said. that can be checked. maybe it is accurate, maybe it is not accurate. but people can verify it and the

press can verify it. what we're seeing more and more now, no matter how ads are targeted, whether microtargeting, pistol shot or rifle shot or the more broad shotgun, it is using politicians speaking in their own words. can things be taken out of context? sure. you saw a very powerful add that mitt romney erred in florida, 27 seconds of tom brokaw, just straight from told nbc news broadcast, and i am taking responsibility for this message -- more and more, i think we'll see, especially in a here or there will be billions of dollars spent, tons of messages out there. how do you shine through with something accurate, relevant? i think that will be politicians

speaking in their own words and other campaigns using them speaking in their own words. host: a comment made recently by a business organizer. "the rise of the tea party was largely the result of the effect of microtargeting that help identify the party supporters. microtargeting is how we have been so successful. there's no way they could have kept up the momentum and energy without microtargeting." tell us about the tea party and what he's talking about here. guest: what we mean by the the party -- and i will fall back on my former profession of being a geeky college professor, saying there still needs to be a lot of good work done on the tea party. host: on research and understanding what it is. guest: clearly a lot of people

identify with the tea party wowere conservative republicans who had always voted conservative republican. there might have been an element of people who tune out in 2008 and the -- and may have been more independent and now lean republican. no one will come up one morning and said i will start the the party and we will try to mobilize a bunch of folks and win the 2010 elections for the republicans. it very much grew up organically. that said, after it had begun to grow up organically, after a rant on cnbc -- it was rick santelli indications about the obamacare administration. it was professionals using campaign tools like microtargeting. people will often compare the the party to occupy wall street.

both organic movements. what happened with the tea party in 2010 is republicans, political leaders were able to take that organic movement and direct that both in terms of money raised, energy, and voting into the election coming into the electoral arena. it will be interesting to see if occupy wall street pops up again in the spring and whether that participation and energy gets translated into the electoral arena. host: a political science professor at the university of wisconsin, madison, where he was the founder of the university of wisconsin advertising project and the university of wisconsin news lab. he has spent time talking on the air about ads and dissecting adds. he worked election night coverage in every u.s. federal election since 1998.

let's get a few more calls in here. john, go ahead. caller: i only have a few things to say and this is one of the. i can hear you, young lady. host: we are listening to you, john. go ahead. caller: talking about things that are really important like the economy, jobs, and the price of fuel oil that is going up every day, every day. host: can i ask you about what kind of ads you see on tv? do you feel like you're being targeted as a voter? are the campaign's understanding what you care about? caller: what i would like to see is what the people are going to do. talk about things that really have to be talked about. host: we are hearing from a few callers that they would like to see more positive and then

negative eds are targeting agencies taking that into account? guest: the caller in pennsylvania will get a lot of at this time around. it is the core of geographical targeting when it comes to presidential elections. there is plenty of information out there. again, i do not want to be the person to said that negative advertising is great and everything is super in american politics. i think of ads as a vitamin. everyone should go eat a well- grounded breakfast, good food, and then you might need a little extra vitamin for extra information. it is the same thing with advertising. if you are only using advertising and that is your only source of information, that is going to be problematic. so it demands the press does their jobs, and it demands that

businesses do their jobs. for the call are out there in lancaster, pennsylvania, you are going to get a ton and advertisement in pennsylvania, a ton of negative advertising in pennsylvania. you can watch them or you do not have to watch them. but you certainly have the opportunity to search out information and know what the basic beliefs are of the candidates. actually, when we look at the evidence -- it is not absolutely every single campaign ends up having a positive effect, not that every single campaign mobilizes people, makes people more likely to vote. not every single campaign gives people more information. but the strong empirical evidence is, overall, the more people are exposed to advertising in general, the more people are exposed to negative advertising in particular, the more they know about the candidate. host: dunn writes, "decades

later it is remembered, deasy at, because of its untrue hyperbole." guest: people often remember the had because it was negative. really was not. it was combined with someone counting down a missile launch. was it hyperbole? perhaps, but go back and look at the things that barry goldwater said about the use of nuclear weapons. this was a way for the johnson campaign to interject that into the campaign and for that to be discussed. certainly the goldwater campaign would have had its chance to respond. maybe the most famous, but certainly not the first, not the last, and it was absolutely and

it -- an issue that was killing that campaign. host: targeting political advertisers -- as for coming in this morning. coming up next, our weekly "your money" segment. we look at improper payments made by the federal government. first, this update by c-span radio. >> it is 8:46 a.m. eastern hundred more on campaign 2012 from former republican chairman haley barbour. "thismarks on cbs' " show, the former mississippi governor says it is early in the game and republican candidates should focus on what he called the anemic economy. more on the economy from a survey by the national association of business economics, fighting economists are increasingly upbeat about employment, new home construction, and business spending for 2012, and

forecasters believe the economy will grow at a rate of 2.4% in into a's white house, job creation will be the main topic of discussion when the president meets with the nation's governors. the meeting will wrap up the final day of the national governors' association's winter meeting. those are the headlines on c- span real. >> there are millions of decent americans relate -- willing to sacrifice for change, but it wanted do it without being threatened and they wanted to be peacefully. they are the non-violent majority, black and white who are for change without violence. these are the people whose voice i want to be. >> as candidates campaign for president, we look back at 14 men who ran for office and lost. go to our website, c-span -- c- span or slash the contenders to see video of contenders who had a lasting impact. >> can you remember the depression, when times were hard and you left the door is unlocked?

now we have the most violent, crime-ridden society in the industrialized world. i cannot live with that. can you live with that? >> c-span.org/thecontenders. "washington journal" continues. >> every monday morning we bring you our feature segment, "your money. we put the spotlight on a federal program with a special focus on who is involved and how much it costs. this morning we the improper payments by the federal government, how to get those back, how it all works. my guess is beryl davis of the government accountability office. >> improper payments are any payments that should not have been made or were made in an incorrect amount. but the definition of improper payments also includes payments that are due to documentation errors or insufficient documentation.

for example, if i could elaborate more, if i were to be paid as beneficiary of a federal program, and i will give two situations. in the first case, i may be paid $110 and it is determined that $100 of that was an inaccurate amount of payment. but the difference, the $10 difference i was overpaid, that is one situation of an improper payment. paid $110 but it was determined that there was some missing information i did not provide -- my social security number, the number of beneficiaries i had, my income. there is certain information that might have been missing on my application, and the entire $110 would be identified as an improper payment. in fact, it might -- i might have been there legitimate perception of that money,

because of the lack of the petition, it is classified as improper payments. host: howdahs this specifically happen? is it on the end of the federal agency, the person trying to get the federal money? how do these things slip through the tracks? -- through the cracks? guest: there are many root causes of improper payments. action has been taken to identify categories of improper payment route causes. the agencies are now trying rather aggressively to their root causes into three categories. i might mention that last year in 2011, the total amount of government improper payments was $115.3 billion. some of that might include improper payments that are strictly due to lack of documentation. this was somewhat good news because the year before it was

$5.3 million more. so there actually was a reduction last year in the improper payments. host: let's look at improper payment by agencies last year. health and human her services at -- and human services $65 billion. the department of labor, $14 billion per social security, $9 billion. agriculture, $5 billion. guest: the health and human services areas -- medicare, medicaid, those comprise more than half of the one under $15 million of improper payments. -- of the $115 million of improper payments. 1.2 $5 billion was recovered through audit programs, and of more than half of that, 7 and 79 million was due to medicare. host: we're talking about improper payments that the government has made with our guest, beryl davis, who just mentioned federal agencies spent

out a hundred $15 billion in what are known as improper payments -- about $115 billion in what are known as improper payments, last year. if you would like to call in and talk about this topic, here are the numbers -- let's look at high-error programs. you mentioned that medicare and medicaid come into play here. medicare fee services, $29 million but the $29 billion last year. host: dig into these numbers here. what does that actually mean? guest: if you look at the top 10 programs responsible for improper payments last year, they comprised about 1 1/7

million dollars, 1 1/7 -- they comprised about $107 billion. the unemployment insurance number is due to people who go back to work but they continue to receive benefits. many of the top 10 programs are -- you will see there are documentation errors, administrative errors, someone might not have put the data in the computer correctly. as i mentioned earlier, someone may have left off information from their application regarding a specific situation such as the previous employment, the number of children they have, etc. so many of these are due to administrative verification eras -- errors, it may be that information got on the application but the agency was not able to support that through an independent database. so there are a number of reasons. this is why a government accountability office is focused on drilling down to the root

causes of improper payments. this is critical to be able to identify the course of action plans and identify preventive means of avoiding the pay and chase way of doing business, where you pay somebody and go after the money after the fact. host: anthony joins us from annandale, virginia, democrats line. heard a reporter 60 pitches, an outline for an affidavit -- a report, 60 pages, an outline for affidavit, and they set me back a report -- now 2012, and since then, since i never followed up on it, they also submit the exact same 60-page information

to the gao, and they never even acknowledged my sending a letter to them. i finally called them, and the person there was to convey to death person -- was a tone-deaf person. i'm mad -- i wonder how you recruit -- how you accrue your losses. guest: if you would like to send that information, i will do some research and find out what i can for you. i would be happy to look into it. host: does the government find out about cases of abuse or error or fraud from tips? is that a way that information comes out? guest: certainly tips are one method of identifying part -- improper payments.

the agencies have their own programs, such as data analytics, where you look at trends come and take these huge databases and data and look at trends that might indicate fraudulent payments. you also have opportunities to share information between agencies. a good example might be the pell grant. the pell grant is looking toward the treasury department to assist it in the sense that they can pull up the irs data. when an applicant fills out an application, either he or she or their parents can actually pull information from the air -- from their tax database and put it in the loan application. you see a lot of agencies trying to make better use of sharing information, and that is really critical. another example might be, as i mentioned earlier, unemployment insurance. the $5.3 million reduction, the largest piece in that was due to

a reduction of $3.8 billion in unemployment insurance due to the lower program outlays. that program, again, because it has people that go back onto the payroll and are no longer needing unemployment insurance, they are looking at associating with health and human services, which has a new database, comparing their database with the health and human services database to try to find potentially people who can come off the payroll. host: beryl davis, with the government accountability office. this is our "your money" segment. james, independent line, in common, mississippi. good morning. caller: i wanted to ask her -- in the case of the government, with housing and the usda

department and development for complexes and things like that, you know that you participated in the program correctly, and over several years you begin to see a deterioration of the complex or apartments that you live in, and you report these issues to the people that you represent and they sort of like put it on hold because you know we're living in the low-income areas, and the federal government assists in these programs and you speak out about these commissions and you ask a more the money is going for the repairs, for upkeep of the complex and they give you 500 or 600 different pages to fill out, and then you are being

persecuted for speaking out, what do you do in cases like that? for several years we have been speaking out about the slumlord's coming into these apartments, especially here in call-in, mississippi, and they just keep giving us the run around and also harassment. i have spoken with the usda department about it, and they are looking into it, but what did you do when you know it is wrong and they are holding you up and say we cannot -- you know it has been going on for 10 or 25 years? guest: the best thing you can do is work with the agency itself, and there are proactive people within the agency, advocates for individuals such as yourself who may be able to help you. i would not be able to specifically assist you in this particular situation, looking toward the agency and asking for their assistance might be the best vehicle for obtaining help.

host: the gao did an analysis of improper payments. explain what the role of the gao is when it comes to policing this or keeping tabs on that money that was paid out and should not have been. guest: the gao is considered the congressional watchdog. it is responsible for looking at how federal moneys are spent, looking at programs for effectiveness and efficiency across the federal government. it produces probably around 1000 products appear in the form of reports said testimonies. report -- spend testimonies. we are partial, fact-based, not partisan. we have high professional standards we have to comply with. host: democratic caller bank in atlanta, georgia. caller: my concern is about

fraud and medicare. my mother is on medicare and i want to care for her but i worry about all the fraud. she goes into the hospital for a few days ed they bill anywhere 20,000 -- and they built from anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 a visit. she has a nurse come to the house once a week. they are charging something like $70 an hour. i note they don't paid nurses that kind of money. multiplied at time -- multiplied that by the hundreds of other people who are on medicare, i wonder if anything is being done to crack down on. guest: i think we have two issues here. what is the amount of the

payment. sometimes there are billing rates that are higher than what the government pays. again, i am not an expert in the area of healthcare services so i cannot piece is a big as to whether or not the payments are too high. -- i cannot be too specific as to whether or not the payments are too high. the other issue of fraud, we are looking at the different reasons for improper payments across all of the agency's. there are 79 programs in the agencies that contribute to that $150 billion figure each year. we look at that, but there were relatively few cases of fraud. that does not mean that fraud doesn't exist. there are actions that are being taken now to identify fraud, and once fraud is identified, to put a stop to it. on twitter

direct us to a story in "the washington post." $77 million computer system to detect fraud before it happens a prevented just one suspicious payment by christmas, saving taxpayers exactly $7,591. senator tom carper delaware wonders, did they leaeve out some zeroes?" guest: i cannot speak to that specific issue you are talking about. the agencies are looking at how to better align their huge databases with matching databases and, as i mentioned, these analytic techniques where they can identify patterns of fraud. in this particular case, it may be that the software is been --

has not been in place long enough. there is reason to ensure that any investment on the part of the government is made wisely. when you poke your hardware, software, anything you think is going to have a benefit down the road, there should be a good cost analysis to determine if that will be a meaningful benefit. host: the director of medicare's anti-fraud program suspending and that itone way is unfair to a great technology on ua single statistic." david, massachusetts, independent, good morning. caller: good morning, libby. what is your role as far as auditing government spending?

second, based on the amount you put out as far as improper government payments for last year, how much of that is inappropriate spending cuts congressional salaries -- towar congressionalds salaries? guest: i think i can help to understand and answer your question by telling him how the payments -- the estimates, about. these are estimates reported by the agency. i might digress for a moment and say that the government accountability office has a number of programs now and audits that are taking place related to reviewing improper payments in the area of medicare, medicaid, the department of defense. to get back to how the estimates are comprised, the different

agencies are required by law -- there has been a lot of that legislation the last decade that is moved forward in identifying improper payments. they have to be developed using a statistically valid samples. it is an estimate of estimated payments that, again, are due to statistically valid samples. host: beryl davis, we're talking about $150 billion of improper payments last year. on the scale of government payments in general, we're talking about a success-failure rate of how much? guest: 4.7%. the total outlays for those programs is $2.50 trillion. host: 95% perceived success rate? guest: correct. host: phil, republican in fort worth, texas.

caller: good morning. i don't see under chart how much money we are wasting an illegal aliens, wasting what food stamps and all the free stuff they get at the county -- host: philip, are you concerned about the law itself or people breaking the rules? caller: i am concerned about people breaking the rules and taking benefits from our kids and our citizens. they take our jobs, they take our kids' jobs. our kids' on a planet rate is way higher than the regular unemployment rate -- kids' unemployment rate is way higher than the regular unemployment rate. host: one caller talked about congressional salaries and how those can be improper payments. guest: correct. there is definitely a difference between what the law states is

an improper payment and what some people might consider to be improper payments. looking at what the agencies are doing to mitigate improper payments, they -- the law requires an agency that has activities of more than $1 million annually it to have our recovery audit contractor program in place, where the program is required to go out an audit and find if improper payments have been made. they are required to report improper payments if they meets certain threshold by law. they are required to perform a risk analysis to determine which programs are susceptible to the improper payments. the more recent legislation passed in 2010 now requires inspector general of each of the ies to look at what the improper payments might be in and to determine whether or not there has been compliance with

the act of 2010 regarding the identification of improper payments. host: michelle asks us on twitter whether the gao has oversight of the defense department. maybe you could talk about when it comes to a proper statemenspg -- improper spending. guest: it is important that you raise the question, because this past year there were commercial paper programs with the department of defense that were not included in the government- wide estimate. they worked -- they were developing their estimating methodologies. this year, there were nine new programs that were added to the total of the programs that had estimated improper payments. one of those was fairly significant, the drug program

that added $7 billion to the total. host: mark, democrats' line. caller: good morning. i have a question for ms. davis. what is your view of obamacare? does she think that law has to do with the medicare fraud thing going on throughout the country? i am just wondering, does that needed to be repealed in order to make things better for the rest of us throughout the country? guest: because i work for the government accountability office, we have a very strict standards about auditing and sharing in reporting information. we report to congress, we report to various agencies. our records are public. you can go to our website at gao.gov and see all of our testimonies and reports.

i cannot speak specifically to that break any statement i make needs to be relevant to the work we do have the government accountability office. host: the recent analysis of improper payments in 2011 shows there were $150 billion set out improperly. can programs accounted for about $7 billion, -- $107 billion, 90% of the problem. delaware, brandon, independent line. caller: great show again, c- span. i wanted to speak on the point of improper payments. i don't think anybody disagrees on what an improper payment is. i think where the disagreement comes in, like you said, what the government says is improper

payments, because there is no doubt that just about every american citizen has given an illegal immigrant money or something that an own american citizen cannot get is an improper payment. according to the government, it is and not. that is what we need to fix first, what is an improper payment. also, when people get improper payments from unemployment, they can pay that back with unemployment. what sense does that make? host: you raise the question of how improper payments are paid back. we talked earlier about this idea of the law and whether or not improper payment is something people want to see, objective or not. let's take the second part of what brandon had to say, how do you get the money back? guest: if the individual is continuing to receive the benefits, a feature benefits can be reduced. it is more difficult -- an

example would be a contractor that received payments for it services or products provided. the payments can be withheld. but it is more difficult with an individual paid in -- it is up to the agencies to determine how best to retrieve the money. there are contract audit agency's that they pay a contingent fee to to recover the fund. host: should someone be sent to jail, fined or penalized if they were given improper payments? that gets to the question of whether or not it was intentional or not on the part of the recipe, but if they were ignored, could they get in trouble? -- if they were ignorant, but they get in trouble? guest: absolutely, that they could. host: ed joins us. where are you calling from? caller: lowell, massachusetts.

host: you are on the air with beryl davis. caller: i have one area of what i consider to be fraud that is very difficult. i happen to work in real- estate and i go to houses where people are receiving assistance. they get appliances. appliances that are supplied to these people, washer and dri er, it was like $205,000 for a washer and dryer is applied to these people on assistance. the average american cannot afford that. it is just throughout the whole system like that. people administering these programs have as the philosophy that we are going to get as much money as we can and they over do

it on anything. guest: that is a very difficult question to answer, but i would like to take it to a much higher level. we are talking about stewardship of taxpayer dollars. a lot of questions, your question, other questions that have come in, address that need. the government accountability office is looking carefully at that. we've done many reports over several years with the goal of encouraging agencies to reduce and eliminate improper payments to the extent that they can. but yes, the government takes taxpayer money and has responsibility to spend those dollars wisely. that is one of the important objectives of the government accountability office in helping to identify areas where programs can be more effective, efficient. host: virginia, democrat, go

ahead. caller: yes. er about theain medicare program. i will be 85 this year. i remember when lyndon johnson and the ama was trying to get the law passed for medicare. so many government programs are run by the federal government, so mismanaged, it is unbelievable. i remember the ama was so deadly against the medicare program being put into law. the doctors and most of the republican senators at that time. i remember clearly. i will be 85 this year. so many programs that are mismanaged in the federal government. i was at the doctor's office last year.

i don't take any kind of prescriptions. right away the doctor says, "you have not been here in about nine years." i had knee surgery in 2001. save money, the same surgery, in santa barbara, california -- i was living there at the time. this doctor that i went to for my physical, yearly physical in california, he wanted to put me through all these tests. i said, i don't have any problems, i don't take any prescriptions. white you want to run me through these tests? he said, "i have to put you through the computer here so i know how to manage to." i had an ultrasound of my stomach, and terrorism in the stomach, i had a chest --

aneuryism in the stomach, i had just c -- chest x-ray -- host: i think we lost connection to his phone line. guest: the government accountability office has a health care team that focuses on medicare and medicaid. that is basically what they do. it we are interested in ensuring that the agency is doing whatever it can reduce improper payments. we take that very seriously. host: our guest, beryl davis, is with the government accountability office. she testified before congress earlier this month. what was the message you are sharing with congress, and what did they want to hear from you? guest: the message i shared with

congress is that much has been done, and a good example is the reduction this past year of the fight with $3 billion -- the $5.3 billion -- most of that was unemployment insurance. there are many things that need to be done. a good example is better estimating methodology is. -- methodologies. there are programs that are not completed their estimating methodology. the total may go up. another thing to look at is agencies that are really having difficulty even putting estimates it together. the children's health insurance program is temporary assistance for needy families, both of concludede not this year and they are very important to help him services programs. tanf has difficulties because it has to work with state government.

medicaid is one of the other major participants in the large $115 billion figure. it also was a partnership and statehe federal it governments. it is important to work with agencies and that level. basically, to look at the root causes of improper payments -- agencies and doing a better job of that. if you find at the root cause, you can take corrective action. if you do not find out why it happened, you will not be able to solve the internal control issue. looking at data matching, data analytic techniques, program design. program designed to be a big issue. medicaid, for example, because there are so many different eligibility requirements, creates a lot of difficulty in overseeing those programs. there are things that can be done regarding dataset detection. we talked about recover audit

programs. other means might be data mining. looking at the estimating methodologies, how we can work better with the state government in contention with the federal government. -- conjunction with the federal government. host: texas, welcome. caller: i have been practicing health-care law for 16 years. and turning to a corporate compliance company that is built on a federal contractor program, and those providers -- most providers want to prevent fraud, wire to prevent over- utilization. but in an effort, a very well placed effort, to regulate and andent and fignd fraud overpayments, i have seen real

access by four contractors -- excesses by federal contractors. i am sure there are good and capable people, but the program has basic flaws. what is it sent investigators to senseiew -- omne is its investigators to interview former patients, patients from two to it four years ago, some of which have completely recovered, some of which, unfortunately, have passed away. especially in the area of home health care. i have seen under the majority of cases non-qualified, non- health professionals, go in an interview the patient or their care givers. and in some cases engage in

repetitive questions to the patient that in many cases are in the late 70's, early 80's. trying to elicit a disqualification. this is all civil. it is not criminal fraud. they also audit the files. i have seen cases where they have lost copies of clinical files given to them by the provider. host: what have you learn from your experience and what you witnessed? what do you want to talk to beryl davis about? caller: well, a program can be well designed, but the way it is and limited, the way i have seen with dozens of providers, not taking medicare, interests are choosing to take private pay. guest: you certainly have raised a good point. it is not strictly program design. there are issues of the implementation program.

yes, medicare and medicaid, health and human services is a huge department and the program's there are very large. both in the magnitude of the debate will stay intact and reach and the taxpayer dollars being spent. -- magnitude of the individuals they impact and reach and the taxpayer dollars being spent. certainly the government accountability offices g due is doing its best with oversight to do audits of other reviews, making recommendations to congress. there is legislation passed that is moving us in that direction. host: question on twitter.

guest: well, we do what we call follow-up audits. i would hesitate to call them "post-mortem," but what we make recommendations, week follow up to make sure those recommendations are implemented. in most cases, the agency's take our recommendations seriously. sometimes there may be said to -- there might be statutory barriers. but we follow up and make recommendations. host: beryl davis its financial management and insurance director at the government accountability of this. gao.gov is the broader website, and there is also a website, paymentaccuracy.gov. callero to a democratic

in south bend, indiana. caller: ms. davis, i would not want your job for all the tea in staff but dyou have meetings. how many people it's a to you directly? -- answer to you directly? do you have sub-directors? how'd you have a meeting to find out about these problems? guest: thank you for that question. the gao has approximately three outer thousand employees. -- 300,000 employees. i have a number of assistant directors who work for me. we do something called a matrixing, which means i will also work with people in health care, work with people on strategic issues, i will work with people in other areas of the organization. we don't have a clear, linear identification of individuals working for us.

we worked very well as a team together and that is what makes our product so voluble, that we bring in all this expertise. we have actuaries on staff, economists on staff. host: twitter -- can that happen? guest: certainly, it sells like it could happen and has happened. hopefully, situations like this are very infrequent. the fact that it was identified is a very positive step. people are now looking at what the issues are and how they can correct the issues. host: beryl davis of the government accountability office. this is our senate where we are looking at payments by the fed -- or government this is our segment where we are looking at

payments by the federal government. as our guest pointed out, less than 5% of federal payments -- guest: correct. host: beryl davis, thank you for being with us this morning. guest: my pleasure. host: coming up, we will take your calls with open phones, but first, this news update from c- span radio. >> the white house has been helping to pay for new york police department programs that put entire muslim neighborhoods under surveillance did the money is part of a grid that is intended to help law enforcement fight drug crimes. since the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001, the bush and obama administrations have given $135 million to the york and new jersey area in the high density drug-trafficking area program. in syria, at the european union has voted to increase sanctions on the regime of president

bashar al-sadr because of the 11-month crackdown against dissidents. assets have been frozen of several government officials. activist groups said that nearly 7500 people have been killed. a suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle into the gates of and nato base in airport in eastern afghanistan today, setting off a blast that killed nine afghans. the taliban claimed the attack was revenge for u.s. troops burning copies of the koran. it follows six days of deadly protests in the country over the disposal of the koran and other islamic texts at a u.s. military base. the pentagon has scheduled a briefing on this subject at 11:30 eastern time this morning. you can listen to it on c-span radio or watch it on c-span television. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this particular phone all the

rings and a serious crisis. vote for president johnson on november 3. >> bush and dukakis on crime. bush supports that penalty for first-degree murder. dukakis allows weekend passes from prison. what was willie horton. >> the accusations kerry made against the veterans of vietnam were just devastating. >> on average, negative commercials are more likely to be factually correct end of negative commercials are more likely to talk about issues. >> will 2012 go down as the most negative campaign cycle in history? in the past political campaigns and their impact on american culture. watch this and past campaign ads

online at the c-span video library. it is what you want, when you want. "washington journal"e hou continues. here are the lines. host: let's look at the latest news out of kabul, afghanistan. "a suicide car bombers struck early monday at the gates of the jalalabad airport, killing nine people in an attack. insurgents said this was revenge for u.s. troops burning korans. the explosion comes six after six days of daily protests

in afghanistan. afghan president hamid karzai has urged calm, saying that afghans should not let the insurgents capitalize on their indignation to spark violence." c-span will be covering a briefing at 11:30 this morning from the pentagon. we will hear from the pentagon's press secretary and a captain in kabul, broadcasting via satellite in the pentagon briefing room. that is 11:30 on c-span. from orange,herry tex., on the independents' line. caller: good morning. i was just agreeing with the man who had recently called about emergency help that is offered to people. me and my daughter were

recently in a domestic violence situation last year, and i had gone to the dhs office, and only emergency services offered in so far is any sort of referral to places you may be able to gulf and stay -- go and stay -- host: i'm so sorry, the phone connection we have is breaking up and it is a bad connection. i am so sorry, we are going to have to let you go, but they do for sharing your personal experience. baltimore, maryland. hi, michael. caller: yes, i would like to know what the president is going to do about the boys that got shot out in afghanistan. host: what do you think should happen? caller: first off, he ought to pull our guys out of there. second of all, get an apology

from them over there. our boys go down because of some book. that is ludicrous, really. we have a president who has no backbone, no military experience, and has never served. it is ridiculous. story in's look at a "the new york times" about the campaign trail. let's look at the conversation over religion. "santorum makes the case for religion in the public sphere. with two days left before the high stakes primary in arizona and michigan, rick santorum delivered a full throated defense of religion in public life on sunday, appealing to social conservatives who revive his presidential campaign's print on the talk shows and in speeches, mr. santorum responded to comments made by president john f. kennedy." let's listen to what president

kennedy said. this is something from september 12, 1960, when president kennedy was talking to the greater houston ministerial association. [video clip] >> i believe in an america where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no catholic tantalic catholic, should he be president, -- no catholic can tell the catholic, should he be present, how track, where no church school is granted public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him. host: you can watch more of president kennedy tossed his speech on a website at our video library -- more president kennedy's speech on our website at our video library. that's listen to rick santorum's

response to this. he was on abc's "this week." [video clip] >> i don't believe in an america where the separation of church and state is absolute. the idea that the church and have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolute and that medical -- absolutely get to that accorded the -- absolutely antithetical to the pleas of our country the free exercise of religion means bringing people of everybody or no faith into the square. go on and read the speech. "i will have nothing to do with faith, i will not consult with people of faith." host: here is more from "the new york times."

wayne is our next caller. republican in maryland. caller: i want to have the opportunity to ask mr. gingrich, the coach lights in the front and back of the white house, if he were to become president, would he replace those with red ones in honor of his wife? host: i am not sure i understood that question, wayne. let's move on to joel. caller: this campaign is getting to be pretty silly. there are serious issues confronting the country, and we're not considering the state of the world. at least the candidates right

now are talking about issues that are really tight and irrelevant. i want to talk about the patient protection and affordable care act, which some people call obamacare. as time goes on, that will be the good and domination of the law, because it will guarantee -- it is not going to solve all the problems, but it will guarantee that people have access to quality of care. i will call your listeners to, i believe, jonathan gruber of mit. i believe he crafted romneycare and was one of the principal architects of obamacare, and he would be a good speaker to have on your program, because he has written books on the subject and they a little bit law -- they outline laws and virtues, eliminating discrimination from health care, bringing everybody into the pool, other features of making the health care much

more transparent and affordable to all of us. the lack of access to health care is putting the united states at a competitive disadvantage. that is probably one recent the automakers were in such trouble, because they had huge legacy costs of their retirees' health care. unattended, they did not have that issue because they -- in canada, they did not at issue because they had national health care. i would incredulous to look for -- i would incur to listeners to look for the good virtues of the patient protection and affordable care act and particularly jonathan gruber's books on the subject that outlined in quite simple and lucid detail the virtues of the law. host: anthony is next, a democrat in north carolina. is it winston-salem? caller: yes, it is it winston- salem, north carolina. i have a couple things i would

like to address. i am african-american. i am 35 years of age. i have been incarcerated before. i have made bad decisions. but now i'm at a point where i've started a family, recently started working, which is odd, because i'm a guy with felonies and you have people who are going to college and cannot get a job. i recently took part in the occupy situation. i feel that the big banks and these car makers and the people -- the big business are the ones who are running the country right now, as opposed to the little people, the voters. we are the ones who got every single day at work our tails off -- who go out every single day and work our tails off. my message to the rest of the listeners are, should we really

be interested in the voting process what we are not part of the process at all? host: since you were convicted of a felony, he cannot vote, correct? caller: no, ma'am. i am able to vote as long as i am 5 years removed from the felony and i am not on probation or anything like that. they are going to jail houses for, what do they call it, the absentee vote? host: oh, the absentee votes. tell us more about what you're hearing. caller: downed in north carolina, the wake it is being run is that i have align myself with the democratic party because i think they represent the have nots and i am one of the have nots at this point in my life. host: governor jan brewer was at the governors' association.

"president obama hosted a white house dinner sunday night for the nation's governors, but one prominent stage to give did not plan to be there, arizona governor jan brewer. brewer, whose figure putting confrontation with obama last month has become a symbol for political polarization, told that she hadess' prior engagements. she said, 'i would not disrespect the president of the united states.' she will be at the white house for a business meeting. she is endorsing mitt romney." we are watching the primary battle in michigan. rick santorum has an op-ed in "the wall street journal" today. "my economic freedom agenda. it includes things like

punishing american energy, stopping it -- stop killing unlea -- unleashing american energy, stopping job killing legislation, reining in spending, repealing and replacing obamacare." that is the op-ed to date by rick santorum in "the wall street journal." sharon. hi, there. caller: hey, can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i want to mention the patrol seen it advertised earlier. -- petrol theme advertised earlier. the program on the 24th which i want to go back and listen. as a consumer out here of c-span and all the various types of news, i find that the

advertisement is not an negative advertisement, it is not good, not accurate. i spent a lot of my time on facebook disproving negative ads, even been spawned in the media, because they -- even the things in the media, because they put out little snippets and take things out of context. people need to be well informed, . it is up to the media and advertising to do things that are accurate. everybody i talked to said they don't like negative advertisements because generally it is and not true. they just take a little snippets. i have referred more people over the last year, i guess, to c- span. i said, if you want to know something about accuracy, don't

take something off of youtube that is a one-minute long. go to c-span and listened to the entire hour, 45 minutes. i think that is what people need to do, to be fully informed, to find out exactly what the truth is, so that it they can vote for the right candidates. i wanted to put my two cents' worth in this morning. host: the event you are referring to a moment ago was broadcast on c-span on friday from the new america foundation, looking in negative ads and campaigns, and you can find at on our website, c-span.org. ray, independent, texas, welcome. caller: i sent an e-mail to the programmers but i will mention it of light here on the keystone pipeline. they need to check the epa impact statement, environmental, which is very bad for this pipeline.

and the story that canada was going to send the pipeline to the west coast and ship it to china. why are they shipping it to houston? because it will get on the ships there and go to china. they could send it to tulsa, okla., and it would be used in the united states. the statement that they keep putting up that it would be used here is not a true statement. thank you very much for listening. host: this is the story touched on the oil spill settlement. "nearly two years after his brother was killed in the deep water horizon explosion, he drives to baton rouge for the federal trial of the nation's worst offshore oil disaster. he learned on sunday that the judge had to delay the start of the trial from monday to march

5, because bp was making progress in settlement talks with the committee overseeing the lawsuit. he says he has mixed feelings about the prospect of a settlement, adding that he will be disappointed if bp manages to to solve their problems.'" michael, democratic caller in amarillo, texas. caller: a, how's it going? host: good, go ahead. caller: my question about medicaid. it seems that illegals and refugees are steep voted for using medicate. -- scapegoated for using medicate. it seems that none of those people are actually on medicate it is just regular people. you have the numbers, because it

does not seem like that is the way it is going. host: why are you concerned? caller: people have real problems facing this country and it seems that people are just trying to pawn it off on illegals or refugees. no, mostly it is just people who need help. in london account for abuse and other things, -- a lot of it comes from abuse and other things, but illegal people are stuck -- the point was overstated, you know. host: virginia, edward, independent line. caller: i have a couple questions. what was about medicaid and medicare -- one was about medicaid and medicare, the cost of medicaid stopping medicare -- is that correct?

host: we were talking about in a proper government payments and we read by some members about what was going out improperly -- ran by some members about what was going out improperly to those agencies. caller: i am totally disabled. i had been busted up pretty bad for working and i can no longer work. my medicaid actually pays for my medicare in order for me to do it, because i am very low income. also, i heard someone about medicare and medicaid doctors being able to help people out there bethat can help people and are helping people. i am one of those people who have not been able to have been helped properly. i have had two amputations and i

am still going through a lot of problems, and i need help. host: who are you going to for help. do you feel like agencies are responding to you? are you going through the state programs? caller: this is the thing -- if i was a veteran, and don't get me wrong, i respect the government very well, but the process of the government actually taking care of their people, when it comes to people like myself who has medicare, who has worked in their life and is no longer able to work cannot get help they meet. host: let's look at a story that takes a glance at the race for former congresswoman gabby giffords' seat.

we are focusing on arizona a bit in the next couple of days. "usa today" -- "ron barber was fee and tea for about two minutes. she knew hewas looking to fulfill the terms of gabby giffords and how she could help." it goes on to say that, " lawmakers from both parties reached out to him when he decided to run, including republican representative jeff a flake, a friend of giffords. he is running for senate in the fall." we will have congressman jack of flight as our guest -- congressman jeff flake as our guest on "washington journal."

in "the washington post," i commentary piece -- "proud to serve." "i am a federal bureaucrat, a professional government employee. and guess what? i am damn proud of it. all i hear it these days are the ones in future leaders of our country tripping over themselves to denigrate the work we do. i'm tired of it, and i'm fed up. i know clinton represent anyone other than myself, but i would bet that of -- fair number of i don't represent anyone other than myself, but i bet that a fair number of federal employees feel as i do. we are not a drain on the national economy. rather, we are primary reason why the united states remains as great as it is." michigan, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, ma'am. host: are you planning to vote tomorrow? caller: i am, but my candidate

is no longer on the list. i like cain. romney spends so much time bashing newt gingrich or santorum or the cpacs doing the bashing for them. honestly, i don't think that the government needs another 185 pages worth of tax documents. the government needs to realize that they need to switch to, instead of a corporate tax, a federal sales tax could things that are made in china or brazil or whatever, the company can choose to make them here or choose to make them in china, but they will still get taxed at the same rate. that way they don't avoid the tax. then the company can look and say they -- if they law to be in

a country that uses slave labor or cheap labor or duke they want to move to america, -- do they want to move to america? we cannot just look for the sake of building a brand new -- cannot just pollute for the sake of building a brand new tennis shoe factory. host: so if you are going to vote tomorrow and the guy you like is not in the money, who are you going to vote for? caller: gingrich i say is the smartest, romney my wife says is the most business educated, and the one with the most heart is said tora. if i had to pick just one, it would probably be santorum. host: why's that? third-: he's what, a

generation immigrants? the thing that i remember him as saying was that he attended his grandmother's funeral, and his grandfather busted his hands in the coal mines. that is a lot like me and my family. we worked in factories most of our lives. before that, we were farmers. nobody has ever given us anything. if you believe that the democratic party is going to give you something -- remember what pol pot or the chinese president said? just give us a little tight the next thing you know, 60 million dead chinese. host: jim, independent line calling from flint. caller: i have been a democrat

most of life, but the only one really talking about the issues is ron paul. host: keep going. caller: yes, you there? hello? host: white you like ron paul? -- why do you like ron paul? caller: he is the only one talking about the issues. the other was haven't hough and cut each other down. he is the only one talking about the issues. host: are you going to vote tomorrow? caller: yes, i will. he is the only one who knows what he's talking about. if we don't turn this economy around, we are in big trouble. host: have you heard from other democrats or former democrats who plan to vote with the republican primary? caller: some, yes, the date and have gone over to ron paul. host: and you think they will

vote their conscience and go with ron paul? caller: yes, i do. all these guys know how to do is make the constituents' money and turn their back on the public, and we are tired of it. host: "christian science monitor" -- "can democrats' mischief vote give him it michigan win?" arizona, republican. do you plan to vote? caller: no, i don't. i am pretty jaded with the way the republican party has been running their program. when we first went to the war in afghanistan, they gave a long list of reasons why we had to

go. i am sitting here thinking, ok, the republican party, hear they are saying we want religion in our politics and we want women's rights to be reined in as it sells like the reasons we went to fight in afghanistan. i don't see the difference. and they are so against abortion, and yet as soon as it is born in they are ready to put him in the military. i'm pretty happy with the economy as it is. obama is doing it all right job paid for the amount of things and grief mr. bush put us through, i don't see how anyone can even complain. host: thanks for all your calls during "washington journal" this morning. we will be watching the arizona and michigan primaries and be back at 7:00 eastern time with more.

have a good day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> you are watching c-span. our live coverage will pick up in about 90 minutes with a pentagon briefing from kabul. we expect further updates on the address in afghanistan in the wake of reports of u.s. troops burning korans several days ago. that will be 11:30 eastern here on c-span. looking at the u.s. capitol here. both the h a